Snooping by Adult Social Services

Mental health care: good, bad, or just plain ugly?

Moderator: embleton

Snooping by Adult Social Services

Postby embleton » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 pm

Dear Sir/Madam,

I receive direct payments for my care needs that is provided by the City Council.

It has come to my attention that adult social services want to talk to my personal assistant (PA) for information on my private daily living activities during care after Christmas. And adult social services are going to attempt to do so directly with my PA without my permission. If social services want to do that they will ask my permission so I can remain in the loop and be present.

For my privacy under the human rights act, I have directed my PA not to talk with social services directly without my presence; and such privacy and confidentiality is stated in his contract of employment. If social services want to demand directly that my personal assistant discuss matters of daily living activities that we perform together for my care needs and inform social services of such without my presence, then I will terminate his contract of employment for breach of contract by my PA with myself.

Without my personal assistant, I will not be able to function sufficiently to care for myself, and this matter will be the responsibility of social services. My PA does provide care to the best of his ability with the limited hours available with a difficult client living with bipolar affective disorder, that is myself. Such care daily activities have already, to the best of my abilities at the time, been discussed between myself and adult social services during my last review, and I have taken on the opinions of social services concerning my care requirements and an agreement was reached.

Additional hours above that approved was not approved by the management of social services in the council, and that fact I was most upset to hear, without the reenablement team. A team that I do not want invading my privacy within my own premises, even for a limited time that would have been the case. Also a team I cannot find sufficient information on in relation to their abilities to perform those tasks with those living with mental health issues, with the exception of limited information on the council's website.

My last discussion with social services I was assured that the next review of my care needs will be reviewed in a year, and this was agreed between myself and social services, and that time has not lapsed.

If adult social services want to modify my agreed care assessment needs, then social services will set up a section 117 review hearing under the care and mental health act and I will be present, as I have mental capacity as stated in a letter from social services. If such a section 117 aftercare meeting review between all concerned is arranged then social services will provide an agenda for the meeting, and I will justify the requirements for additional hours, as stated in a care needs an assessment from social services that I will enhance. And adult social services will state the reason why it is being reviewed, respectfully, and follow the procedure from start to finish.

I was most upset that the previous care needs the meeting I was not invited to, had no agenda recorded before and after that meeting by adult social services for my review, something I know is breaking the rules under both the care and mental health act for aftercare, so I can remain within the loop.

I request the councils and social services assurance that these matters will be addressed accordingly if they wish to take the matter further in the above direction. And for assurance and a response concerning the above matters that I have addressed respectfully.

This is also a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for all documents that social services have access to and have written during their care assessments of myself. Please bill me accordingly for such a request at the usual rate of £10 or advise accordingly of the cost for such records so I may pay the council accordingly.
My email address is mark @ domain of the forum. terms of use of site in announcements.
User avatar
embleton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:40 pm
Location: Plymouth

Re: Snooping by Plymouth Adult Social Services

Postby embleton » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:23 pm

As a council social services care team have likely come to the conclusion that one of my personal assistants is not appropriate for my care needs (termination of treatment) in the community, even though I’m well settled currently, I have terminated his employment from 31st December 2016, but not officially by law. It would appear that social services completely jumped on the case with respect to me verbally saying that I’d like support removed when I was not in a healthy position at the time mentally, without me confirming such officially by letter with a signature.

My decision at this time is to maintain support and treatment fully under section 117 aftercare, with my personal assistants, fully.

This conclusion reached by social services I consider is the result of malpractice in assessing my needs in July 2016, without a review of my section 117 aftercare package and reaching an inappropriate conclusion, respectfully, in deciding whether my personal assistant is suited for the tasks necessary in relation to section 117 aftercare and the fact that additional hours were not approved by the team that didn’t even document the meeting at all accordingly, when it came up questionable for review. And it is debatable legally whether the correct procedure and practise were followed in relation to the section 117 review, as I wasn’t even invited to the meeting.

May I point out that documentation of section 117 aftercare is well documented as failing in a case between a Mr D and a City Council social services in 2014, and a conclusion reached was poor admission and documentation in that case.

Even though my personal assistant cared for somebody else for an extended period in previous years beyond duty, for more than 35 hours weekly who did have mental health and also mental capacity issues. And has done so for me for some years, then that is the testament that he does perform and is well suited to the job at hand of treatment with my difficulties.

May I also point out that hospital admissions reduction is not a requirement under the mental health act for assessment needs under section 117 aftercare, only that it reduced accordingly, as the prognosis for mental health is a deterioration in health as the year's progress, which is well documented in research papers. And that a deterioration in physical health its also well document in respect of psychiatric medication currently to manage the condition to a limited extent, so this would come under section 117 aftercare in all respects accordingly.

I consider my personal assistant well suited for the task associated with my aftercare 117 package, as I fully trust my current personal assistant. And I must point out that the last commercial organisation that I utilised resulted in my admission to the psychiatric hospital under a section 3 under mental health act at least once, owing to my lack of trust in that respect, a key element in maintaining my mental health in the community, respectfully, and that trust does apply to my current personal assistants in all respects.
My email address is mark @ domain of the forum. terms of use of site in announcements.
User avatar
embleton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:40 pm
Location: Plymouth


Return to Soma, dendrites, and an axon, general discussions about mental health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron